Two further years have elapsed since my original report was presented to the HSE. I have deliberately delayed publishing this summary version to provide all concerned with an opportunity to consider the options available to them. Currently, the children remain in residential care, although Ms Brown and Mr Murphy continue to have regular contact with them. A key factor relating to the children's welfare was to ensure that they were always kept together in whatever caring arrangement was made for them. One of the children was disinclined to leave residential care as she had come to view it as her permanent home. It has not, therefore, been possible for the couple to proceed with the fostering plan as provided for in my recommendations.
In publishing a summary report at this stage, my purpose is to highlight the need for improvement in the lines of communication between the various social workers involved in fostering cases, and the need for greater clarity between the professional and administrative grades as to what is or is not achievable. In this particular case, it was clear to me that the social workers at the coal face were striving to secure permanent foster care arrangements for three children who had challenging needs. They had sought approval to a financial package in May 2001 which would enable the arrangement to work on a long-term basis, subject to the approval of the placement by the Fostering Placement Committee. The Child Care Manager, however, sought to limit financial approval for a three month period only, since in his view, there was no long-term commitment to the arrangement.
The couple were not advised that financial approval to the arrangement had only been given for a three month period, and acted in good faith to secure accommodation for themselves and the children. Ms Brown resigned from her job, as agreed, to care for them following a request at the end of May 2001 from the Child Care Manager to view a copy of her resignation. This request by the Child Care Manager did not appear to be compatible with his assertion that the arrangement was temporary and short-term in nature.
I was concerned that the couple had been given a number of reassurances by the social workers with regard to the arrangements which did not materialise. Reassurances with regard to what might happen if the children's relatives insisted on keeping the children appear to have been given, as were assurances with regard to the fostering assessment which had not been undertaken due to staffing shortages within the Board.
Ideally, the fostering assessment of the couple should have been completed before the children were to be placed with them. In such instances, where the welfare of children is at stake, and a considerable commitment is being made by prospective foster parents, it is incumbent on the HSE to be open and clear in their dealings with their clients. HSE staff at all levels must work closely together and communicate in a proper way with each other, and with their clients, if such arrangements are to be successfully managed.
In the interests of sound administration, important communications to clients should always be made in writing, and in a timely manner, so that clients know exactly where they stand. The complainants did not receive any communication in writing from the Board whatsoever, confirming the proposed arrangement, until their solicitor requested it in June 2001 when the couple were signing for their house. It was inevitable that the confusion evident between the social workers and the administrative staff would impact negatively on the prospective foster parents.
It is my view that while rules and regulations are important in ensuring fairness, they should not be applied so rigidly or inflexibly as to create inequity. Whilst I appreciate that the Circular from the Department of Health and Children discontinued discretionary payments to foster parents in July 2001, no guidance had issued to health boards from that Department with regard to children who had special fostering needs.
These three children did not require special foster care, but they had challenging needs, and it was the professional view of the social workers that their placement with Ms Brown and her partner would be in their best interests and would work well. Indeed, one social worker wrote "that a couple who are willing to look at fostering three siblings with the needs these children have are like gold-dust in my experience". It was generally agreed amongst the social workers that it did not make economic sense to leave the children in residential care and that a home placement was the preferred option for them, if the match was right. The General Manager was concerned, however, about setting a precedent which might have knock on effects for others in foster care. Had an enhanced allowance been made available to the couple following the second approach in October 2002, it could have allowed the couple to proceed with a fostering assessment and these three children might have had an opportunity to live with them as a family unit, before they came to view residential care as being their permanent home.
It is my hope that by publishing this summary report, lessons can be learnt for the future in terms of how public bodies exercise their onerous responsibilities for dealing with the welfare of vulnerable children in society.
Emily O'Reilly
Ombudsman
April, 2007